I'm with you on that one Sternum. Sure, I would have no problem if they wanted to make the new Civ a bit better looking, but I also believe that a series like this has no need of three dimensions. That said any turn-based strategy game series that moved from 2D to 3D makes a move for the worse in my mind. Yes, it may look nice, but it can very well detract from the actual gameplay, which is what these games are all about.

When was the last time you've seen chess players playing matches for the pretty board and figures?

Don't get me wrong -- being an artist by trade, I'm all about aesthetics. I just don't find 3D graphics aethetically pleasing.

Personally, I liked how the artwork in Civilization III was inspired by Brugel's "Tower of Babel." I wouldn't mind seeing them expand on that idea by having the board and the pieces designed using oil paints in the same sketchy style.

Don't get me wrong -- being an artist by trade, I'm all about aesthetics. I just don't find 3D graphics aethetically pleasing.

Personally, I liked how the artwork in Civilization III was inspired by Brugel's "Tower of Babel." I wouldn't mind seeing them expand on that idea by having the board and the pieces designed using oil paints in the same sketchy style.

Mod, mod, mod, mod! ^^

I really like them too. Personally, I really think that CivIII is close to being perfect. The only things I would like, is to be able to make a each-time-a-city-is-captured-then-build-something-specific'ish and some more units/techs/gridlandtypes.

I really like them too. Personally, I really think that CivIII is close to being perfect. The only things I would like, is to be able to make a each-time-a-city-is-captured-then-build-something-specific'ish and some more units/techs/gridlandtypes.

I think a better AI would be right up their too.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win -- Sun-Tzu "The Art of War"

In my experience given the right conditions (fortifications especially large cities) a healthy tank has about a 1 in 20 chance of losing to a spearman

The combat calculator I use tells me you are dead right. A vet spear fortified in a pop>12 metropolis will kill a vet tank 5% (1 in 20 times). Cross a river and put the city on a hill and this rises to 9% (1 in 11 times). It simply emphasises the need to go into the attack with overwhelming force so that the odd RNG setback doesn't stall your progress.

The combat calculator I use tells me you are dead right. A vet spear fortified in a pop>12 metropolis will kill a vet tank 5% (1 in 20 times). Cross a river and put the city on a hill and this rises to 9% (1 in 11 times). It simply emphasises the need to go into the attack with overwhelming force so that the odd RNG setback doesn't stall your progress.

I which case I think I might need to stop playing games for a while, as that number was off the top of my head

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win -- Sun-Tzu "The Art of War"

To complain about something else, I'm worried they'll make combat completely unfun. I read an interview where someone said they were eliminating attack and defense as separate unit stats...now, they'll just have one number for their strength.

Bleah! Civ combat is simple enough as it is! I'd rather see a tactical combat interlude like Call to Power did, or better yet like Master of Magic. The Civ games are fun and all, but Master of Magic did some things so very right. Play it on a DOS emulator if you ever get the chance.

At some points yes indeed. But im having a blast of a game even on mid-difficulty levels. but I also like to have the upperhand.. Makes for a more fun game! My goal is always to try a great thriwing empire, not take over the world.

Absolutely. It is slightly unfair that you have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in the actual combat. I don't mind, because that is not the "point" of Civilization, but it would be nice to have a tactical interface that gave you some influence on that outcomes of battles. I do hate it when you send ten modern tanks at a city, and one or two mech infanty kill off all of them.

To complain about something else, I'm worried they'll make combat completely unfun. I read an interview where someone said they were eliminating attack and defense as separate unit stats...now, they'll just have one number for their strength.

Bleah! Civ combat is simple enough as it is! I'd rather see a tactical combat interlude like Call to Power did, or better yet like Master of Magic. The Civ games are fun and all, but Master of Magic did some things so very right. Play it on a DOS emulator if you ever get the chance.

I agree as well. I do have Ctp, but I never really played it due to SMAC. Was the combat interlude real time? Could you control units once combat began? I love HOI's model. Getting to see the effects of bonuses and org/strength levels as combat takes place adds so much. It'd be nice to see some combat reviews for cIV.

I agree as well. I do have Ctp, but I never really played it due to SMAC. Was the combat interlude real time? Could you control units once combat began? I love HOI's model. Getting to see the effects of bonuses and org/strength levels as combat takes place adds so much. It'd be nice to see some combat reviews for cIV.

It was really just a graphical representation of what civ does behind the scenes. Really the only difference was that ranged units could stand in the back and fire with out getting hit until all the front units where toast. Which made combined arms much more useful. For some reason they imposed a 9 unit stack size limit per location which made movement something of a pain.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win -- Sun-Tzu "The Art of War"

You have to keep in mind though that Call To Power was not one of of Sid Meier's creations. They simply used the Civilization license. Hence a lot of the features that were new in CtP were never translated into Sid's versions.

That you can install windows on an IntelMac. I wouldn't exactly trust ThinkSecret as your main source of "facts", if you get my point. Even though they have done it, it is unknown whether the release of the IntelMac will be bring with it Windows booting. Only time will tell.

That you can install windows on an IntelMac. I wouldn't exactly trust ThinkSecret as your main source of "facts", if you get my point. Even though they have done it, it is unknown whether the release of the IntelMac will be bring with it Windows booting. Only time will tell.

Mandrake628

The developer machines were allready able to boot windows, allthough with some video resolution issues. Apple has said it would not block windows booting on it's final Mactels. Microsoft is still looking into it and might decide to not support Mactels or block it. But currently there are allready several windows emulators on the mac, and with Mactels it would be even much easier since they could run at near native speeds on native hardware. You can be sure you'll be able to run windows on your Mactel at a nice speed one way or another.

I never bought a PC and currently don't have one. I've always bought mac games, like mac games, and never minded waiting longer for them. I would like mac game companies to do well and prosper. But if my Mactel can run windows and windows games that can be picked up for less and/or are released months earlier and have the expansion packs (Civ III)... I'm not going to limit myself just on principles. If Apple can go to Intel I can game on windows.

The developer machines were allready able to boot windows, allthough with some video resolution issues. Apple has said it would not block windows booting on it's final Mactels.

Apple takes a basic windows hardware set and gets darwin going on it and put a dev environment on that ... do you think that make it a mac or anywhere near the mac that will go into production? Possibly but I think those dev machines are aberrations; it is more likely that the production mactel boxes will become less comatible with Windows rather than more compatible. Not intenional on apple's part perhaps.

Quote

But currently there are allready several windows emulators on the mac, and with Mactels it would be even much easier since they could run at near native speeds on native hardware. You can be sure you'll be able to run windows on your Mactel at a nice speed one way or another.

Several windows emulators for the mac... name one besides VPC. Actually since you said "several", name 3 more. VPC doesn't do video hardware directly, it fakes it, games requiring anything but the most craptastic video will not work with VPC no matter which CPU is under the hood. So you can run Quicken for Windows at 95% native speeds, doesn't help Half Life 2 one bit if the video hardware is virtual.

Apple takes a basic windows hardware set and gets darwin going on it and put a dev environment on that ... do you think that make it a mac or anywhere near the mac that will go into production? Possibly but I think those dev machines are aberrations; it is more likely that the production mactel boxes will become less comatible with Windows rather than more compatible. Not intenional on apple's part perhaps.

We will have to wait and see then.

Morrigan, on June 26th 2005, 02:33 PM, said:

Several windows emulators for the mac... name one besides VPC. Actually since you said "several", name 3 more.

VPC doesn't do video hardware directly, it fakes it, games requiring anything but the most craptastic video will not work with VPC no matter which CPU is under the hood. So you can run Quicken for Windows at 95% native speeds, doesn't help Half Life 2 one bit if the video hardware is virtual.

Again, we'll have to wait and see. Strategy games like Civ don't need 30fps 3D graphics.

Edit: You can also use Linux Windows emulation tools to run some windows software under X11.